I believe one of them is going to be on display at the Johnson Space Center there with a mockup Shuttle
Space Shuttle Endeavor final flight over Los Angeles metro area
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
I believe one of them is going to be on display at the Johnson Space Center there with a mockup Shuttle
Lee D
Well-Known Member
"Phantom Ray??" What was that? Great pics BTW.
We were fortunate enough to be out at Huntington beach that day and saw her coming into LA. Cool experience for me and my kids.
The pics are all from online. Not mine, but I with they were.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
The retirement of the Shuttle seemed so sudden to me.
Then, I recalled my father was an Shuttle applicant in the 70's and I had an entry in the onboard experiment competition while in high school, over 35 years ago.
Feeling old.
Then, I recalled my father was an Shuttle applicant in the 70's and I had an entry in the onboard experiment competition while in high school, over 35 years ago.
Feeling old.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
Museum politics are sad to watch. I remember talking with a FedEx team at Millington after the AF recovered/Indian-gave the Memphis Belle and put it in Dayton.
NASA had 2 modifie 747s for Shuttle ferrying. One is at Ellington Field; not sure about the other.
Autothrust Blue
“If you jump on my shift, that’s just rude, man.”
It was a massive effort that took massive support, and massive people.
Pretty darn amazing.
WestIndian425
Well-Known Member
I disagree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
Sad to see the entire program gone. IMO they should have taken all they learned from from the programs failures and built a couple of new and improved Shuttles.
Our space program is now lacking...
Our space program is now lacking...
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Very early on in its development we discovered that the Shuttle would not deliver on its promise of economical reusable lift. Instead of switching gears and continuing to develop and expand heavy lift capabilities, we doubled-down on the Shuttle.
A
Adler
Guest
Exactly.
While I don't agree with the budget constraints, I do agree with the end of the Shuttle. It was bad ass and we proved that we can do it, but there isn't a need or purpose for it. The only way to move forward with space exploration is to return back to rockets.
Cal Goat
Prestige Worldwide™
Oh dear, watching that was way more of an emotional experience than I thought it would be.It's hard to watch my favorite orbiter's final taste of flight before being entombed in a museum forever...
I agree. I got an amazing view of this flight purely by coincidence when they made a turn right over Alameda as they made their passes through the SF Bay Area. But it struck me on some unexpected emotional level. I'd probably have felt better if there was a realistic manned exploration program ready to go in the immediate future, but we're at least 6 years (expect delays) off that mark right now.
The shuttle represented the best of humanity, in my opinion. So it definitely hurts to see them sitting in museums now.
The best speech that says it all. Hal Holbrook. And this was from 1978
Lee D
Well-Known Member
Wow, Capricorn 1.....I remember my dad taking me to see that as a kid. I forgot OJ starred in that one!
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
The money just doesn't support the shuttle. Even if we go back to the moon, it's my opinion that they will never use SLS as its being designed. It just isn't needed. There is no sense in man-rating that entire booster with everything to get you to the moon. Launch the lunar assist stage and lander on a big Atlas V or Delta IV Heavy and launch the crew on Falcon 9 or whatever the man rated booster happens to be. Mate them up in space, off you go, much cheaper in the end.
ArcherII
Well-Known Member
That was one of the scrubbed approaches from the Apollo program. It was called Earth-Orbit Rendezvous. It was discarded very early into the 60s, in favor of the Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous.
In fact, one of Grumman's winning horses for getting the LM contract was that they anticipated NASA's decision towards LOR and started researching on this matter late in the 50s.
Nowadays, I wouldn't know if an EOR would be more efficient or economical than 50 years ago. But I guess the amount of energy needed eitherway would be the same than in the 60s, developmental cost and fuel usage aswell.
I'm no engineer (duh) or hold a PhD in anything other than farts, but if we were capable of producing a 7.5 million pound thrust 3-stage rocket (the heavy third-stage S-IVB was meant to thrust the ship into a high elliptical earth orbit so to get the tangent of an elliptical lunar orbit, the Apollo SPS wasn't capable of that), maybe it was the best compromise between efficiency and simplicity.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
The costs savings in a multiple launch technique comes from the paperwork and engineering and bureaucracy of man rating a giant booster, versus using something small that's already man rated and then launching the rest unmanned. Fuel costs are basically zero, yesterday's SpaceX launch they talked about fuel costs, a Falcon 9 first stage burns about $200,000 worth of fuel. The energy is going to be the same today as it was in the 60's. The difference is, in the 60's, they had no rockets capable of either technique. Today, we have lots of smaller rockets that would be ready to go quickly for manned launches. And we had a couple heavy lift vehicles that could handle the unmanned portion. The problem is, ULA doesn't think its sexy enough (nor is there enough money to be made), so they propose all kinds of outlandish things, which is out we end up with the bastard child that is the SLS. SLS is a total compromise on everything, it's parts bin, jobs project rocket, end of story.
sweeps
Undercarriage Actuator
And to think some crappy regional stole the name
What's interesting is that's Hal Holbrook's speech is an outstanding monologue which is just as applicable today, as it was 37 years go when it was given by him.